{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 3, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:42 P.M. Honorary\nCouncilmembers Annie Lynch and Bria M. Wade led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-429) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Presentation [paragraph\nno. . 09-430] and Fire Department Response Standards [paragraph no.\n09 - 442 ] would not be addressed.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-430) Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management\nAgency on I-880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue\nand 23rd Avenue Overcrossings. Not heard.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Recommendatior to Accept\nTransmittal [paragraph no. 09-433], Recommendation to Authorize the\nInterim City Manager to Negotiate [paragraph no. 09-435], and\nResolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Modify\n[paragraph no. 09-438] were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-431) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public\nUtilities Board Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held\non October 20, 2009, and the Special Joint City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on October 27, 2009.\nApproved.\n( *09-432) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,714,803.71\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 2, "text": "(09-433) Recommendation to Accept Transmittal of Certificate of\nSufficiency of an Initiative Petition Entitled \"Alameda Point\nDevelopment. \"\nSpeakers : Gretchen Lipow, played a video and submitted ahandout on\nbehalf of Eugenie Thomson; David Howard, Alameda; Irene Dieter\nReyla Greber, Protect the Point; Julia Liou, Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council has any discretion on\nplacing the matter on the ballot, to, which the City Attorney\nresponded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired about misleading comments noted by speakers.\nThe City Attorney responded that she has reviewed the initiative\nand does not conclude that there is sufficient evidence to engage\nin litigation over the matter; stated there seems to be some\nconfusion regarding the difference between a Council initiative and\na voter initiative, which does not require prior California\nEnvironment Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is any basis for not placing\nthe matter on a ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated Council or the\nCity Clerk would have been required to seek declaratory relief from\nthe Court to be relieved of ministerial duties to certify the\nsignatures and set the election.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)\nwould be completed prior to placing the matter on the ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the developer\nis not required by law to begin the CEQA process [before placing\nthe matter on the ballot] the developer has consented to pay for\nthe study which will not be completed prior to the election; a\nDisposition and Development Agreement would not come to Council\nwithout a CEQA analysis; the City has gone above and beyond to\nattempt to initiate the CEQA process.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney has reviewed\nEugenie Thomas' letter, to which the City Attorney responded in the\nnegative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney received Ms.\nThomas' letter prior to tonight, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 3, "text": "Counci lmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion is\njust to accept the transmittal of the certificate of sufficiency of\nthe initiative petition, to which the City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( *09-434) - Recommendation to Accept a Grant from the Assistance to\nthe Firefighters Grant Program for $65,127 to Develop and\nAdminister a Multi-Hazard Injury Prevention Program for Residents\n65 Years of Age and Older, Appropriate $13,026 in Fiscal Year 2009-\n2010 Community Development Block Grant Funds to Meet the Grant\nApplication 20% Match Requirement, and Authorize Staff to Make the\nAppropriate Budget Adjustments. Accepted.\n(09-435 ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to\nNegotiate and Execute All Required Agreements Between the Water\nEmergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and the Ferry Operators\nto Place the MV Pisces, Scorpio, and Gemini in Operation on the\nAlameda Ferry Service. [Contracts WETA, Harbor Bay Maritime, and\nBlue & Gold Fleet\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like some feedback\nfrom WETA regarding the use of boats to alleviate the Bay Bridge\nemergency closure.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry\nService and Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service responded very well to\nthe emergency; both the Pisces and Bay Breeze were used; the Bay\nBreeze was the main boat ; noted the Alameda/Oakland Ferry\ntransported the Rockets to their game.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff assessed the parking\nsituation during the emergency closure, to which the Ferry Services\nManager responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he assessed the parking situation;\nthe impact was quite extensive and indicates future concern if\nincreased ridership continues.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated the Main Street terminal parking\nlots were full.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is referring to the Alameda Harbor\nBay Ferry terminal; the neighborhood was impacted.\nMayor Johnson stated WETA is looking into using a parking lot that\nis partially leased by His Lordships Restaurant in Berkeley\nparking lots do not need to double if ridership doubles unique,\ncreative solutions are being developed instead of doubling the\namount of pavement.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the new Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service\nvessel has less capacity.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated the Pisces carries 149 passengers\nand the Bay Breeze carries 250 passengers.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether WETA is looking at larger\nferries.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded WETA will get the Scorpio,\nwhich has been offered to the City for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry\nService; the plan is to sub-charter the Scorpio to the Blue & Gold\nFleet for Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service operations and take the\nGemini from the Blue & Gold Fleet for use by Harbor Bay Maritime\nfor Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry operations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to ensure that communication continues with WETA\nregarding how to address the next Bay Bridge closure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated real time information is available;\nthe Bay Bridge could close again; information will help if a larger\nemergency occurs.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson stated the City still operates its\nferries and should be gathering data.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when WETA would start operating the\nferries.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded hopefully January 1, 2010, but\nprobably June 30, 2010.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 5, "text": "(*09-436) Resolution No. 14396, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Enter into an Agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality\nManagement District for Carl Moyer Program Grants to Replace Two\nFerry Vessel Diesel Engines, Conduct an Open Market Purchase of Two\nFerry Vessel Diesel Engines and Two Diesel Generators Pursuant to\nSection 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter, and Execute All Necessary\nDocuments. Adopted. [Contract: Valley Power Systems)\n(*09-437) Resolution No. 14397, \"Adopting the City of Oakland's\nDeficiency Plan for State Route 185, Acknowledge that the\nImplementation of the Deficiency Plan will be Monitored Biennially\nby the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency as Required by\nState Law, and that the Schedule and Progress for Implementation of\nthe Deficiency Plan will be Considered as Part of the Annual\nConformity Requirements for the Congestion Management Program.\n\"\nAdopted.\n(09-438) Resolution No. 14398, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Modify the Measure B Para transit Program for Fiscal\nYear 2009-2010 and Make the Appropriate Revenue and Expenditure\nBudget Adjustments Based on the Proposed Changes. \" Adopted.\nSpeaker : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr.\nMayor Johnson stated staff is working very hard to make the Para\ntransit Program known; Former Councilmember Kerr's ideas are good.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the fiscal year 2009-2010\nPremium Taxi Service budget would not be changed.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nCouncil would review any possible changes next year; having only a\nfew months of shuttle service data is not sufficient; a year of\ndata is needed to measure the success of the shuttle service.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether inquired why Meals on Wheels\nis not anticipated to be an ongoing component of the City's Para\ntransit Program.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Alameda County\nTransportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) has concerns regarding\nwhether some of the programs are reaching the Para transit\ncommunity; stated some programs will need to be revised in order to\nsupport the shuttle service on an extended basis; Meals on Wheels\nwould be discontinued if the shuttle service continues.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has funded Meals on\nWheels for two years, to which the Public Works Director responded\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 6, "text": "in the affirmative\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a baseline should be established and\nmeasured not less than bi-annually to demonstrate progress; having\ndata is important if changes are needed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Social Services Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB) and Recreation and Park Commission have\nbeen contacted on the matter.\nThe Public Works Director responded the SSHRB and Recreation and\nPark Commission were not contacted since the previously funded\nprograms have not changed; stated staff is using existing reserve\nfunds for the shuttle service which is anticipated to start in\nMarch, 2010; prior programs have been reviewed by the SSHRB and\nMastick Senior Center staff.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the SSHRB and Recreation and\nPark Commission could be involved in the six-month review.\nThe Public Works Director responded the SSHRB and Recreation and\nPark Commission could be involved with measuring the affect of the\nshuttle service analysis.\nMayor Johnson stated the SSHRB and Recreation and Park Commission\nshould be briefed on programs to help spread the word.\nThe Public Works Director stated ACTIA and the Para transit\nAdvisory Planning Committee were very complimentary regarding some\nof the programs provided and stated that the City has stellar\nadvertising.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with\ndirection that staff determine the starting baseline, measure not\nless than every six months and involve the SSHRB and Recreation and\nPark Commission in the process.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*09-439) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2130,\nNew Series, Updating the Civil Service System of the City of\nAlameda. Introduced.\n(*09-440) Ordinance No. 3009, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Subsection 30-5.14 (Barriers and Fences) of Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30-5.14 ( e ) to\nRequire Administrative Use Permits in Non-Residential Districts for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 7, "text": "Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback\nor Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public\nAccess Easement. \" Finally passed.\n(*09-441) Ordinance No. 3010, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Adding Article\nI, Section 13-13 (Alameda Green Building Code) to Adopt the 2008\nEdition of the California Green Building Standards Code. \" Finally\npassed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n( 09-442) - Fire Department Response Standards. Not heard.\n(09-443) Scheduling Date - Joint City Council/School Board Meeting.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Clerk stated two potential dates are January 13, 2010 and\nJanuary 14, 2010; three Councilmembers have a clear schedule; that\nshe is waiting to hear back from two Councilmembers; the meeting\ntime would be 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson stated the School District might have a problem with\nJanuary 14; the meeting should be scheduled for January 13 as long\nas three School Board Members can attend.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would have to defer to the\nmajority and reschedule a conflict.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09 - 444 ) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Amendment #1 to the\nFiscal Year 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant Action\nPlan, Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nRelated Documents, Agreements and Modifications, and Authorizing\nStaff to Make the Appropriate Budget Adjustments.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how staff came up with $75,000 for\nthe Littlejohn Park Community Center kitchen upgrade.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the Recreation and Park\nDepartment provided the estimate.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the figure seems high; $75,000 could\npay for a high-end residential kitchen.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 8, "text": "The Economic Development Director stated the estimate includes\nelectrical upgrades; any unspent money would go back into the\nprogram.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the kitchen update was a project\nwas on the Measure WW list, to which the Economic Development\nDirector responded that she does not believe SO.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act funds were to be used originally.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Multi-Hazard Prevention Program\nis a good idea, particularly if plugged into the conduit at Mastick\nSenior Center; that he hopes to take advantage of programs run out\nof the Hospital District in order to have large outreach.\nThe Economic Development Director stated that she would pass\nCouncilmember Matarrese's comments on to the Fire Department that\nruns the program the Federal Emergency Management Administratior\nwill be providing a $65,000 matching grant.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nThere being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of\nthe hearing.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09 -445 - ) Resolution No. 14399, \"Calling an Election in the City of\nAlameda on February 2, 2010 for the Purpose of Submitting to the\nElectors an Initiative Regarding Development at Alameda Point.\n\"\nAdopted.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what date would fall within the 88 to 103\nday window; further inquired what date would fall within the 180-\nday window.\nThe City Clerk responded the 180-day window would not apply because\nthe City would have to consolidation with another election and\nthere is nothing to consolidate with; stated 88 days falls on\nJanuary 30, which is a Saturday; the 103 days falls on February 13,\nwhich is also a Saturday.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could consolidate with\nanother election between January 30 and February 13.\nThe City Clerk responded the Registrar would be conducting an\nelection for Piedmont on February 2, 2010.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether SunCal specifically\nrequested a special election in the initiative, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City Clerk is outlining\na very strict construction of the Elections Code.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the 180 days\nwould be measured from the date Council acts to set the election,\nwhich is consistent with the legislative intent.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the interpretation is very strict;\ninquired whether any case law requires said time frame.\nThe City Attorney responded that she is not aware of any cases\naddressing whether a city could go outside the 180 days, only\nlegislative history.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the initiative is both an ordinance\nand Charter amendment; staff has chosen to analyze the initiative\nas an ordinance, not a Charter amendment; the Charter amendment\npart has been in the forefront of everyone's mind from the\nbeginning that she is confused about the initiative being analyzed\nas an ordinance and not a Charter amendment.\nThe City Attorney stated staff is not analyzing the matter solely\nas an ordinance, although the ordinance code section was cited by\nthe drafters of the initiative; the initiative is partly a Charter\namendment and partly calling for an amendment to the General Plan;\n15% of the qualified voters signed the petition; the Elections Code\ndoes not address an initiative that is both a Charter amendment and\nan ordinance; Councilmember Gilmore is correct in stating that\nstaff is providing a more conservative reading when there is\nnothing specifically on point the end result would have been the\nsame if signatures were submitted earlier in the year; the matter\nwould have come to Council in August to set the election for\nNovember 3, which would have fallen between the 88 and 103 day\nwindow.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether anything states that the 88 to 103\nday window does not apply to an ordinance initiative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 10, "text": "The City Attorney responded there are four exceptions under\nElections Code 1405; stated one exception allows consolidation with\nanother election; the problem is that the City does not have an\nelection with which to consolidate; another exception allows the\nelection to be held with the General Election if it falls between a\nState wide primary and a General Election; money would be saved;\nthe other two exceptions do not apply; such as, more than two\nspecial elections cannot be called within 180 days.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she would prefer to have the\ninitiative classified as a Charter amendment rather than an\nordinance; putting the initiative on the ballot in February would\ncost $200,000 or more; City money is tight; the cost would be\napproximately $50,000 to $75,000 if the initiative were placed on\nthe June ballot placing the initiative on the June ballot would be\nfiscally responsible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is any way to ignore the fact\nthat the initiative includes an ordinance and consider the\ninitiative a Charter measure.\nThe City Attorney responded the initiative has much more to do with\nan ordinance than an amendment to Measure A; stated that she would\nnot advise ignoring the fact that the initiative includes an\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the last sentence of Section 9214\naddresses the requirement that a citizen's committee would need to\nrequest that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of\nthe people at a special election; that she does not think the\nrequest is in place; a letter was received from some citizen\nimitative signatories requesting to consider a June election in\norder to provide an opportunity for the City to engage in good\nfaith negotiations; questioned why the matter has been placed on\nthe Regular agenda instead of the Consent Calendar if a strict\nreading of the Elections Code precludes the flexibility of the\nCouncil; stated a 67% potential savings could easily fund three\nfire fighter laid off positions, pay for a lot of programs, and\nkeep City Hall open on Fridays which the Interim City Manager is\nproposing to close; Council should do everything possible to be\nfiscally prudent.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter couldn't be placed on the Consent\nCalendar because Council needs to set a date for the election.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the initiative would be\nclassified if Measure A were removed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 11, "text": "The City Attorney responded the initiative would be classified\nunder Elections Code 9214.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the reference to the\nordinance would be unchanged, to which the City Attorney responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether one feature of the\ninitiative is dependent on the other, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the features need to be\nevaluated when assigning the appropriate sections of the Elections\nCode.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the\ninitiative proponent was not required to cite Section 9217.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the classification is\nindependent of the request made by supporters of the initiative, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded that she believes that is\naccurate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said statement is correct.\nThe City Clerk responded that she has not seen the supporters'\nrequest.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Elections Code\nconsiders the text of the initiative; further inquired whether a\nfeature [of the initiative] classifies the initiative as an\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded the City Clerk pointed out that in the\ntext of the initiative, the initiative proponent actually cited\nElections Code 9217 and identified the initiative as an ordinance,\nnot a Charter amendment.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether having the proponent identify the\ninitiative as an ordinance, not a Charter amendment, would be based\non the face of the initiative and not what the proponent claims.\nThe City Attorney responded the totality of the circumstances would\nbe reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated in reviewing the initiative independently\nstaff would conclude that the initiative is predominately an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 12, "text": "cost of having a special election where Alameda has the only item\nranges from $6.50 to $8.50 per voter which would total up to the\nhigh end of $350,000; the June election would include a primary,\nBoard of Supervisors, and City of Oakland election and the cost\nwould range from $1.50 to $2.50 per voter; potentially, there could\nbe a savings of approximately $300,000.\nouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the consequences of\nignoring the Elections Code and placing the SunCal initiative on\nthe June ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded the Council could receive a writ of\nmandate for not complying with the Elections Code.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that Section 9214 stipulates that a\nrequest is needed for a special election; one camp does not want\nthe initiative at all; proponents and supporters of the initiative\nwould like the initiative to go past the Exclusive Negotiation\nAgreement (ENA) period; the Oakland City Attorney prefers November\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 13, "text": "because that is when the first administrative draft of the EIR\nwould be available; there does not seem to be direct clarity that\nthere is a violation of the Elections Code; the exposure and risk\ndo not seem to be that high right now.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has no intention of\nwillfully violating the Elections Code; the Oakland City Attorney\nworks for people who might potentially sue the City; that he would\nlike to hear what the speakers have to sayi that he wants more\nclarification regarding the difference between classifying the\ninitiative as an ordinance versus a request from the proponents\nhaving the initiative classified [as an ordinance].\nMayor Johnson stated the Oakland City Attorney is looking at the\nissue from a whole different prospective.\nThe City Attorney stated the Oakland City Attorney is presuming\nthat the initiative is a Council sponsored, authored initiative,\nwhich is not the case.\nIn response to Council Matarrese's inquiry regarding whether an\ninitiative proponent directly requesting an initiative to be set\nfor a special election is a different question from this initiative\nreference to Elections Code 9217, the City Attorney responded\nElections Code 9217 describes what can be done with an ordinance;\nthe initiative proponents did not come out and request a special\nelection, but called for an election in a section of the initiative\nand referred to Elections Code 9217.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is referring to Section 9214,\nwhich is the reference in the City Clerk's staff report.\nThe City Attorney stated the question has been asked and answered.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Section 9217 is different from\nSection 9214, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether SunCal has offered to pay for\nthe election, to which the Deputy City Manager responded that she\ndoes not know.\nSpeakers Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Dug Siden,\nAlamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization; Honora Murphy, Alameda;\nRandell Sharpe, Alameda; Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda; Anne Spanier,\nLeague of Women Voters; Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope; Ross Ojeda,\nRenewed Hope; Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope ; William Smith, Renewed\nHope ; Lynette J. Lee, Renewed Hope; David Howard, Alameda Dave\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 14, "text": "Needle, Protect the Point Marc Kasky, Green Century Institute,\n(submitted handout) ; Ashley Jones, Protect the Point; Elizabeth\nGreene, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Irene Dieter\nRosemary McNally, Alameda, (submitted handout) ; Brian Schumacher,\nAlameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, statement read by Shayn\nLoshafroff; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Jim Ross, Protect the Point;\nKaren Bay, Alameda; Bob Sikora, Alameda; Rose Ferro, Alameda;\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation; Former Councilmember \"Lil\" Arnerich, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the initiative is very complex and a lot\nof issues need to be vetted on both sides that she feels it is\nworth looking at the Elections Code and interpreting it in a way\nthat provides the flexibility to save the taxpayers a significant\namount of money in tough economic times.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of setting the election to be\nconsolidated with the June 8, 2010 election.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Attorney\nstated that the Elections Code does not provide guidance for a\nhybrid initiative; the matter has been about Measure A since the\nbeginning; the matter would be a moot point in terms of the General\nPlan amendment if there were no exemption to Measure A; that she\nagrees with a lot of the comments that people made tonight; the\nabsentee ballot issue did not occur to her; the initiative is very\ncomplex and everyone needs to read the initiative and be well\ninformed before casting a vote; that she cannot agree to spend\nmoney on an initiative when the cost would be so much less in June.\nMayor Johnson stated Council has received an opinion from the City\nAttorney ; the matter is a legal issue and Council should be\nfollowing the City Attorney's opinion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is flexibility to\nput off making a decision tonight.\nThe City Clerk responded according to Elections Code 9214 and 9215\non the night that the certification of the petition is presented,\nCouncil needs to adopt the ordinance within ten days of being\npresented, immediately order an election, or order a report;\nhowever, Council has already ordered a report.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Council could adopt the\ninitiative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 15, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the negative because part of the\ninitiative includes a Charter amendment.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated many people are concerned about whether\nthe public understands what the initiative is all about; that he is\nconcerned with citizen groups being able to get messages out in\nsuch short order: SunCal has been peppering the community for the\nlast six months the community now understands what is in the\ninitiative; the initiative cannot be changed that he bows to the\nlegal determination; the developer has $600,000 into the initiative\nalready and will have over $1 million before the matter is over.\nMayor Johnson stated it would cost a lot of money for community\nmembers to run a campaign through June.\nOn the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Tam and Gilmore - 2. Noes\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any other opinions have\nbeen sought.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Elections\nCode experts have been consulted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Elections Code experts\nconcur [with the City Attorney], to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wishes he could support an\nalternative that saves the City money ; the law, as interpreted by\nthe City Clerk and City Attorney, needs to be followed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution setting the\nelection date of February 2, 2010.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community seems to\nbe on board and understand the initiative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the decision is difficult; that she\nfeels very strongly that a creative, legal way could have been\nfound to avoid having to place the matter on the February ballot\nand save the City a lot of money; that she cannot vote to be\nfiscally irresponsible; that she will abstain from voting on the\nmatter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that she will oppose the motion; that she\ncannot impose an additional financial burden on the City when there\nare job cuts, closing of City Hall [ on Fridays], and potentially\ntaking an ambulance out of service; based on conversations with\noutside counsel, a way should have been found to give Council\nflexibility; that she is not supportive of the motion.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the concern for fiscal\nresponsibility; the cost of the election is nothing compared to the\nissues presented in the initiative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Mayor\nJohnson - 3. Noes Councilmember Tam. Abstentions Councilmember\nGilmore - 1.\nThe City Clerk stated that tomorrow she will go out with a notice\nregarding submitting arguments Council can chose to designate\nauthors for arguments the mailing of the sample ballot will be\nfrom December 24 through January 12; absentee ballots will be\nmailed out January 4; the last day to apply to vote by mail is\nJanuary 26.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there could be one ballot argument\non each side, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether ouncilmembers could select someone\nto write the argument on one side or another, to which the City\nClerk responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the argument needs to be submitted.\nThe City Clerk responded the Registrar's suggested deadline for\ndirect arguments is November 13; stated the she will bump the\ndeadline back a little bit.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many people can sign the argument, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded five.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether timelines could be posted\non the website.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council can\ndesignate authors for the argument.\nThe City Attorney stated there is no requirement for\na\nCouncilmember to volunteer to draft an argument, but it can be\ndone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 17, "text": "for Encinal Terminals was terminating; stated time was extended to\nallow containers to be moved off site; another permit provided the\nopportunity for an interim use which included adding some storage;\neighteen months is the total time for terminal activity.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would no longer be\ncontainer storage, to which the Economic Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when storage would case, to which the\nEconomic Development Director responded that she does not know.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested an off agenda report on the matter.\n(09-447) Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, stated a\nunified plan has been set up at Coast Guard Island since the recent\noil spill into the Bay; no one ever addressed the possibility of\nwhat to do in case the Bay Bridge is closed [during an oil spill].\nthe Park District closed Crown Beach; crews came in to rescue\nbirds; the Police Department was notified and were involved in the\nbriefings.\nMayor Johnson stated a briefing should be provided after everything\nis sorted out.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the beach is still closed, to\nwhich Mr. Siden responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired when the beach would reopen, to which\nMr. Siden responded the Health Department would make the\ndeclaration.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 18, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-448) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nLibrary Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Kristy L. Perkins for Appointment to the\nLibrary Board.\n(09-449) Councilmember Gilmore stated that on October 22 she\nattended the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) fall general\nassembly Ron Simms, Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment (HUD) , stated HUD will be operating differently under\nthe new administration; HUD will be working with the Department of\nTransportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the\nDepartment of Education to coordinate funding; regional planning\nwill be needed in order to receive HUD funding; land use and\ntransportation decisions will need to be integrated\nregionalization is the only way to compete in the twenty first\ncentury HUD decision making is now going to be done at the local\nlevel; HUD is trying to position itself as a partner, not a\nregulator.\n(09-450) Councilmember Matarrese stated AB166 addresses fines for\nillegal, abandoned boats and also includes a surrender fund to keep\ndecrepit boats from becoming hazards to navigation; Alameda has\nseveral thousand slips; he would like to know whether AB166\napplies to street abandonment as well as marina abandonment ;\nmarinas are left with the disposal of a boat that will not sell at\nauction; the most important component of AB166 is that the Governor\nis supplying a surrender fund; a strapped boat owner can surrender\na boat to the fund, and the fund would deal with the disposal of\nthe unsellable asset.\n(09-451) Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council requested\na\nrecommendation from the Police Department regarding abandoned\nvehicles.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department is working with the\nCity Attorney's office to finalize an action plan; a report should\nbe ready in the next few weeks.\nMayor Johnson stated the plan needs to include boats.\nThe City Attorney stated boats and recreation vehicles will be part\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 19, "text": "of the amended ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a boat on Grand Street is being\nmoved and is abandoned; the hazard needs to be removed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated trailers are also an issue.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 3, 2009- - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(09-427) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation\n54956.9 (b) ; Number of cases: One.\n(09-428) Conference with Labor Negotiators ; Agency negotiators:\nKaren Willis and Craig Jory; Employee organizations : All Bargaining\nUnits.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a mater of\nanticipated litigation and provided direction to Legal Counsel;\nregarding Labor, the matter was not heard.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 3, 2009- -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 10:48 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(09-452 CC/09-48 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting held on October 20, 2009. Approved.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(09-453 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated\nPromissory Note in the amount of $190,000 and an Amendment to the\nHOME Regulatory Agreement for 461 Haight Avenue Between the City\nand ALL Housing, Inc. ; and\n(09-49 CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Grant Agreement in the\nAmount of $80,000 and an Affordable Housing Maintenance Covenant\nfor 461 Haight Avenue Between the Community Improvement Commission\nand ALL Housing, Inc.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the cash flow\nwould go to a positive side so that the property would be\nmaintained.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the positive cash flow\nis not extraordinary; stated there would still be a struggle but\nthe cash flow would provide for maintenance and needed services.\nouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation with the condition that the property be maintained\nwith the benefit from the payoff as well as the grant.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff has looked\ninto the opportunity of purchasing the property for the Housing\nAuthority.\nThe Economic Development Director responded that she is not sure\nwhether the Housing Authority reviewed the matter; stated the\noperator is very responsible.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated oversight is needed to ensure\nthat the property does not get into trouble again; funding could be\nbetter utilized from the Housing Authority.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan second the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Economic Development Director stated staff\ncollaborated with the Housing Authority on what would be the best\nway to work on the project.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Resources for Community Development\nmanages other projects in the City and does a very good job;\nconcurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese's suggestion\nincluded in the motion.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam commended staff for the creative\nrestructuring ; stated the project is the only resource the City has\nfor the disabled.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(09-454 CC) Recommendation to Accept Public Streets Within Bayport\nAlameda, Approve a Lease for the Use of the Community Building and\na Reciprocal Easement Agreement Per the Joint Use Agreement Between\nthe Alameda Unified School District and the City, and Authorize the\nInterim City Manager to Execute and Authorize Execution of\nDocuments for Completion of Bayport Alameda Project Obligations\nand\n(09-50 CIC) Recommendation to Approve Quit Claim Deeds Conveying\nthe Public Streets and Bayport Park and Storm Treatment Pond\nProperties from the Community Improvement Commission to the City,\nApprove an Access and Maintenance Easement from the Community\nImprovement Commission to the City for Segments of the Storm Drain\nSystem, Adopt the Bayport Project Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010,\nand Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion of Bayport\nAlameda Project Obligations.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 23, "text": "The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC residential\nprofit participation revenue is over and above the base price.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the $19.3 million pays for project obligations; stated all\nof the profit participation and land sale proceeds received from\nthe project go back into the project to retire obligations; a $7\nmillion obligation for the developer advance still remains; profit\nparticipation expectations were higher two years ago.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether State level\nproblems and redevelopment fund take away will have any affect on\nthe bond.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the State's financial condition has hurt the bond market.\nstated redevelopment bonds have done much better than other types\nof bonds; today's bond market is much higher than a couple of years\nago; nobody will allow the City to bond until how the City will\nmake the State payment is determined; the City has the capacity to\nissue a bond much larger than recommended by staff; that she\nrecommends not to bond to capacity because of State uncertainties.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff would provide\na complete bond overview, to which the Economic Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has the\ncapacity on paper: estimates were raised as the project was built;\nusing revenue streams to pay bonds back is subject to the State\ntake away; the State's structural problems are not going to be\nremedied.\nThe Economic Development Director stated that she has had\nconversations with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director\nregarding consideration of strategies for just using tax increment\ngenerated off the project for the next year or SO.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the annual tax increment from\nthe project.\nThe Economic Development Director responded over $3 million; stated\nthere is $866,000 per year in existing debt service payoff of old\nbonds that anchor the project.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-03", "page": 24, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the State take away is going\nto be a major concern.\nThe Economic development Director stated everyone is frustrated by\nthe situation; rules seem to change or get developed along the way\nwith respect to State payments; a lawsuit has been filed regarding\nthe legitimacy of taking money; the lawsuit would be appealed if\nsuccessful; the money will sit in a bank account or trust and not\nbe put to productive use in the community.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nJoint Meeting at 11:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf"}